Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Giltner, Inc. v. Idaho Department of Commerce & Labor

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 29, 2008No. 33611Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJ. Jones, Justice

I concur in the Court’s holding (1) that the Industrial Commission erred in finding Giltner’s adherence to federal rules and regulations was evidence of control over the reclassified drivers, (2) that such evidence cannot be used when analyzing the control prong of I.C. § 72-1316(4), and (3) that there was insufficient evidence otherwise demonstrating control. However, I dissent from the Court’s holding that the reclassified drivers were not engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business. In my estimation, such holding is not supported by the factual record…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dinneen v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto ShopIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Arundel v. TurkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Manley v. Harvey Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  5. National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. Employment Security AgencyIdaho Supreme Court · 1961

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API